This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: her expectation of compensation and the circumstances which made it unjust to allow the husband to retain the benefits of her efforts. The court held that the wife was entitled to restitution because she conferred benefits on the husband (financial subsidization of his legal education) with the agreement and expectation that she would be compensated therefor by his reciprocal efforts after his graduation and admission to the bar. The husband left the marriage with the only valuable asset acquired during the marriage (his legal education and qualification to practice law). Whether restitution on the basis of unjust enrichment is appropriate in the context of the marital relationship. The court held it would be inequitable to allow the husband to retain the benefit without making restitution to wife....
View Full Document
- Spring '08
- Law, Husband, Superior Court, unjust enrichment